1. Evaluating inputs for organic farming – a new system Case study: Hydrolysed proteins Chris Koopmans c.koopmans@louisbolk.nl 13 October 2005

2. Overview Objective and method Hydrolysed protein matrix Key issues evaluators Discussion of key issues Conclusions

3. Objective and Method Objective: –Find out whether the matrix works –Provide an example for real applicants Method: –One applicant representing a member state –3 experts representing the expert panel Only first phase of an evaluation process!

4. Matrix: Application form Name: Hydrolysed proteins of animal origin Composition: Amino acids, peptides, polypeptides, denaturated proteins. Nutrients: HyPro contain 5 - 10 % N (mainly as organic N). In addition, they contain 2 - 8 % Ca. Quality: The composition of HyPro as a category varies widely with different materials of origin and with different hydrolysis processes. Form: Fluid or solid. Use: Fertiliser, biostimulants and complexing agents.

5. Matrix: Application form Approval in EU: At present hydrolysed proteins are approved for use in conventional agriculture in Italy (according to the Law 1984/748) and Spain. Crops: Horticulture (vegetables & fruit trees), winter cereals. Application method: –to the soil, by fertigation, when utilised for their fertilising properties; –to plants, by spray application, when utilised for their biostimulating or complexing properties. Dosage and application rate (empirical figures from Italy): –Fertigation, horticulture: 2 - 12 kg N/ha/cropping cycle; –Fertigation, fruit trees: 5 - 20 kg N/ha/year; –Spray application: 0,5 - 1 kg N/ha/application.

6. Matrix: Application form Precedents with similar raw materials. Recycling of waste material. Traditional use in Italy and Spain. Necessary for some crops. Key issues in favour Key issues causing concern Origin of parts of the animals from factory farming cannot be excluded. Not all manufacturing methods equally compliant

7. Key issues evaluators Alternatives and necessity Key issues in favour Key issues causing concern Factory farming: origin of material Manufacturing Effect of impurities: Cr residues Public perception

8. E 4.02-3 Alternatives ApplicantEvaluatorScore

9. E 2.01 Origin of materials ApplicantEvaluatorScore

10. E 2.03 Factory farming origin ApplicantEvaluatorScore

11. E 3.01 Manufacturing methods Applicant Evaluator Score

12. E 5.03 Effects of impurities ApplicantEvaluatorScore

13. E 8.01 Public perception ApplicantEvaluator Score Consumption-related views.

14. E 8.02 Public perception ApplicantEvaluatorScore Farming practice-related views

15. E11.04 Proposed restrictions Need recognized by the inspection body or inspection authority; Not from chemical hydrolysis; Not from wastes collected post-tanning (this restriction was only supported by some experts).

16. Conclusions The completed matrix gives an adequate and quick picture of key issues associated with the product. The matrix reflects opinions of the evaluators. Controversial issues have been identified and restrictions on manufacturing and origin of materials have been proposed. The next step would be to evaluate the product according to the restrictions proposed.

17. Question to the audience Were the critical issues identified and evaluated effectively, bearing in mind the multiple origins, manufacturing methods and uses?